@Ghost_Pilot_MD@parmita It seems like you are missing the point of her post but wouldn’t the question of whether viruses are alive or not be more of a philosophical question than medical misinformation? Like what does one do different medically with a living virus versus a not living one?
@Jpit3@radscientist_ Circadian rhythms by definition have to be entrainable and self propagating, so as long as there is consistency the circadian rhythm does not have to be in phase with the diel cycle
@ThosVarley I’m enjoying reading this, and as an early career biologist I really appreciate the “for the mathematically nervous” portion. Do you have any advice for people with a non-quantitative science background who are trying to learn stuff like this (and other quantitative tools?)
"Absurd" is fine poetry - yes, it certainly seems absurd given how baked in the parochial views of other minds are. Like a lot of art, it calls for us to examine ourselves to see why it seems so absurd. But what that statement isn't, is science, engineering, or even philosophy. In order to be any of that, someone would have to not just *claim* it's absurd (as the implications of relativity, quantum mechanics, and a lot of math seem, to our classical intuitions), but actually do the hard work and clarify *why* networks of other kinds of cells (with their ion channels, electrical synapses, neurotransmitters, microtubules, etc. etc.) can't possibly do some degree of what the neurons in your brain do. Good luck. "Absurd" makes it seem like, of course there's a convincing consensus story explaining it. But there isn't. And more importantly, they'd have to show what *practical benefit* comes from their view - produce something useful, interesting, etc. - show the fertility of this binary way of thinking. I've yet to see either. In contrast, I've summarized many times the empirical benefits of investigating the continuum view. So do poetry if you want, but let no one confuse it for a scientific comment on a scientific claim, or a useful engineering pointer.
Anyway, my position isn't that we know our organs to be conscious (any more than we *know* each other to be conscious). My position is that for the exact same reasons people currently attribute consciousness to brainy animals (and I list those reasons in that talk; another one focused on this is going online tomorrow), we should take seriously (i.e., try to shoot down in a principled way - not by fiat) the possibility that other kinds of meat can be a conduit for consciousness too.
> any "goals" it may have are limited to that body
um yeah obviously. I didn't claim you'd be having discussions with your liver about the financial markets or the latest film you saw. It cares about things happening in physiological state space, and with new tools (under development now!) we will, hopefully, get a glimpse of its world and communicate with it about the things *it* cares about. Btw if it didn't have both care/intent and a degree of intelligence to meet its goals under challenging circumstances, we'd be dead in short order.
(for anyone wondering why I respond to such things, it's not to argue with any particular OP; it's to clarify my position on things that others may be thinking as well)
Dudes wait until they have the most beautifully orchestrated ground breaking avant garde shit you’ve ever seen on to say something like “you’ve always got good fits”
The most abusive that a healthy friendship will get is when you and your boy are at the pregame and he had a long day and you are drunk before he is. He’lljust be mean